the State has not only not demonstrated that the Commission committed an error that affected its right of defense before the Commission, but also that the inclusion of those events is proper since they have been ruled supervening. The Court, therefore, rejects the preliminary objection. B. Preliminary objection on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies b.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 20. The State put forward two arguments relating to this preliminary objection. The first, regarding the “2,317” original beneficiaries’ subsequent claim of “fringe benefits” and “other calculations” 17 as indicated in the Expert Report, that it is “an issue that has not yet been resolved by the domestic jurisdiction” where, moreover, there is “a precautionary measure issued by the judiciary that suspends its effects.” The State added that there has not been an unjustified delay that would be an exception to the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies since the Expert Report was issued on December 3, 2015, adopted on July 1, 2016 and confirmed on March 16, 2017, although the legality of the confirmation is now being “questioned by the State.” 21. Secondly, it indicated that, in relation to this same controversy on a subsequent claim made by “2,317” beneficiaries, the process of executing the decision was not an appropriate channel for such claim, but rather the proper manner was through a labor channel that is designed for the payment of social benefits and other work-related rights, such as that of receiving fringe benefits. It specified that the procedure for enforcement lacks an evidentiary stage and, therefore, is “not an appropriate and effective channel” to formulate these claims. 22. The representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra pointed out that it is the State itself that has been filing different remedies and claims “with the clear motive to delay and to not comply with its obligation.” 23. The representative Meneses Huayra argued that the determination in the Expert Report was final since it had been adopted and confirmed on appeal. She also indicated that the precautionary measure referred to by the State had been “lifted judicially.” 24. The Commission indicated that this preliminary objection concerned supervening events and that the victims should not be “required to exhaust domestic remedies for each supervening event.” It stressed, moreover, that the State did not invoke this objection at the proper procedural moment, which was when it became aware of the representatives’ brief that contained additional observations on the merits. b.2 Considerations of the Court 25. Pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Convention, in order to admit a petition or a communication lodged with the Commission under Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 18 However, the remedies must not only formally exist, but 17 That is: compensation for time of service, bonuses of July and December, the payment of 30% for years of service, schooling, vacation pay for 90 and 91, May 1 holiday pay and educational allowance. 18 C. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 85 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 24. 8